Perret v. George
| Decision Date | 12 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 21,22 |
| Citation | 286 Pa. 221,133 A. 228 |
| Parties | Perret et us., Appellants, v. George et al., Receivers |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 17, 1926
Appeals, Nos. 21 and 22, March T., 1926, by plaintiffs, from judgments of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1923, No. 819, for defendant n.o.v., in case of Fred Perret and Violet Perret his wife, v. W. D. George et al., Receivers of the Pittsburgh Railways Co. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries of wife. Before CARPENTER, J.
Verdict for Fred Perret for $1,500 and for Violet Perret for $1,500. Judgments for defendant n.o.v. Plaintiffs appealed.
Errors assigned were judgments n.o.v., quoting bill of exceptions.
Judgment affirmed.
Thomas M. Marshall, with him R.P. and M. R. Marshall, for appellants. -- There was definite evidence as to the place where Mrs. Perret fell and as to the size of the hole which caused her to fall.
The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence: Powell v. Wilhelm, 49 Pa.Super. 269; Becker v. Phila., 212 Pa. 379; Mack v. Rys., 247 Pa. 598.
A street car company is obliged to furnish its passengers a safe place to alight: McCollum v. Rys., 51 Pa.Super. 637.
William A. Challener, for appellee, cited: Scanlon v. Traction Co., 208 Pa. 195; Bean v. Phila., 260 Pa. 278; Lerner v. Phila., 221 Pa. 294; Lane v. Dickinson, 276 Pa. 306.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Mrs. Perret was injured, when alighting from a street car, by stepping into a hole in the street. She says she was prevented by people in front of her from seeing the hole until in the act of stepping from the car, when it was impossible to stop her descent. It was daylight, the accident occurred at noon and there was no occasion to disregard the ordinary precautions of safety. The car passed a short distance beyond the usual stopping place, at the intersecting street, because of a building operation at the corner.
The hole into which appellant stepped was in the public highway a thoroughfare over which defendant had no control, was not in any way responsible for, and had no authority to repair, if needed. However broadly and strictly we may have held street railways to care in receiving and discharging passengers, where the company owns or controls the right-of-way with the approaches thereto, the rule is different where such right-of-way and approaches are not so owned. In the latter case, there is a permissive use of the street in common with others, without any control of it. The public officers were in authority, and the municipality is responsible for the street's condition if an injury results therefrom: Scanlon v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 208 Pa. 195, 197. It is only in exceptional cases arising under contract that a street railway company is responsible for accidents occurring in the cartway of a street...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Portland Traction Co.
...Co. v. Thomas, 180 Va. 292, 23 S.E.2d 148 (Sup.Ct. of App.1942).' The Carroll case quoted with approval the following from Perret v. George, 286 Pa. 221, 133 A. 228: "Street car companies are not required to observe the condition of streets over which their cars travel, so as to stop their ......
-
Knapp v. City of Detroit
...on a paved public street generally supposed to be reasonably safe, the practical duty of the carrier has been discharged. Perret v. George, 286 Pa. 221, 133 A. 228;Reid v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 171 Minn. 31, 213 N.W. 43;Shepard v. Denver Tramway Corp., 10 Cir., 62 F.2d 339;Lee v. Boston ......
-
Calhoon v. Pittsburgh Coal Company
... ... Scanlon v. Phila. R. T. Co., 208 Pa. 195, 197, 198, ... 57 A. 521; Furby v. Penna. R. R., 286 Pa. 85, 87, ... 88, 132 A. 796; Perret v. George, 286 Pa. 221, 223, ... 224, 133 A. 228. Nor does it apply where, as in the present ... case, the intending passenger has not yet reached ... ...
-
Carroll v. City of Pittsburgh
... ... liability is different from that of a railroad company, which ... has the exclusive control over its stational ... facilities.'[2]In Perret v. George, 286 Pa ... 221, 223, 224, 133 A. 228, 229, it was said by Mr. Justice ... (later Chief Justice) Kephart in a passage frequently quoted ... ...